Welcome to Counterspin, your weekly look behind the headlines of the mainstream news. My name is Laura Flanders. This week's program: frank talk about Pacifica Radio.

For 40 years the listener supported radio network has been where progressives and activists turned for alternative news and arts programming. Often controversial, almost always non-commercial, Pacifica has aired what corporate funded broadcasters simply would not. At Pacifica, producers have often broken ground that only afterwards would other journalists explore.

Now, though, the network is a topic of controversy itself. Critics claim that network executives are trying to weaken the power of local listeners and producers and centralize control in National hands. Those executives say they're just trying to modernize to attract new listeners and bring alternative radio out of the margins of the media.

We'll speak to a past president of the Pacifica Foundation, and two journalists with contrasting opinions of the Pacifica affair. Stay tuned for our lively discussion. [News briefs - not transcribed]

Laura Flanders(LF): 49 YEARS AGO, WORLD WAR II CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR AND QUAKER LEWIS HILL INVESTED JUST OVER 11 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN A 250-WATT FM RADIO STATION CALLED KPFA IN BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA.

A BROADCAST JOURNALIST WHO'D SEEN ENOUGH OF J. EDGAR HOOVER AND RED-BAITING INFLUENCING COMMERCIAL RADIO TO SHAKE HIM UP QUITE A BIT, HILL STARTED KPFA WITH A MISSION THAT WAS TO PROMOTE CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND EXPRESSION AND CREATE LASTING UNDERSTANDING, AS HE PUT IT, BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS OF ALL NATIONS, RACES AND CREEDS. AND IT WAS FROM THOSE BEGINNINGS THAT SPRANG THE PACIFICA RADIO NETWORK, A NETWORK NOW OF FIVE LISTENER-SUPPORTED RADIO STATIONS WITH 57 AFFILIATES IN 27 STATES.

AS YOU'LL HEAR ON THIS PROGRAM, PACIFICA REPORTERS HAVE LITERALLY GONE WHERE NO COMMERCIAL REPORTERS DARED OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS, BRINGING INTO LISTENERS' HOMES BROADCASTS ON THE VIET NAM WAR FROM NORTH VIET NAM; ON - THE - GROUND REPORTS FROM IRAQ DURING THE GULF WAR, DRAMATIZED READINGS OF THE WATERGATE TRANSCRIPTS, THE NATION'S FIRST PROGRAMS BY "OUT" GAY AND LESBIAN PRODUCERS AND THEIR GUESTS.

PACIFICA HAS NEVER BEEN SCARED OF CONTROVERSY, BUT NOW THE NETWORK IS AT THE CENTER OF ITS OWN. THIS JUNE, PROTESTERS DEMONSTRATED OUTSIDE THE NATIONAL BOARD MEETING OF THE PACIFICA FOUNDATION IN OAKLAND, CLAIMING THAT THE NATIONAL BOARD OF GOVERNORS WAS TRYING TO WRESTLE POWER OUT OF THE HANDS OF LOCAL PEOPLE AND CONCENTRATE IT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. AND THIS COMES AFTER YEARS OF COMPLAINTS AFTER WHAT EXECUTIVES CALL "MODERNIZATION" AT MANY OF THE STATIONS BUT WHAT SOME LOCAL PEOPLE CALL AN ABANDONMENT OF THE NETWORK'S PROGRESSIVE MISSION.

WITH US TO DISCUSS THIS CONTROVERSY ARE TWO JOURNALISTS WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THE CHANGES AT PACIFICA AND A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE PACIFICA FOUNDATION.

PACIFICA MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES ARE FORBIDDEN BY THEIR OWN GUIDELINES TO DISCUSS CRITICISM OF THE NETWORK ON THEIR OWN AIRWAVES AND AS THIS PROGRAM AIRS ON ALL THE PACIFICA STATIONS, THE GUIDELINES THEREFORE MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO PARTICIPATE, BUT WE DO HOPE THAT THEY WILL RESPOND IN SOME WAY THAT THEY SEE FIT.

AT THE END OF THIS PROGRAM WE'LL BE LISTING THE WEB PAGE ADDRESSES FOR BOTH PACIFICA AND THE NETWORK'S CRITICS, SO YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THERE.

LETS START, THOUGH, AND WORK OUR WAY BACKWARDS WITH THE MOST RECENT NEWS OF DEMONSTRATIONS OUTSIDE THE PACIFICA BOARD MEETING IN OAKLAND.

BELINDA GRISWOLD IS A STAFF REPORTER AT THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN WHO'S BEEN FOLLOWING EVENTS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING SPECIFICALLY KPFA BUT MORE BROADLY, THE NATIONAL CHANGES AT PACIFICA. HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE CONFLICT, OR THE CONTROVERSY, AS IT STANDS NOW, BELINDA? WHAT WAS THE POINT OF CONTENTION AT THE NATIONAL BOARD MEETING THIS JUNE?

Belinda Griswold (BG): Two of the major ones, and two of the ones most in evidence at the Board Meeting were these issues about programming and what critics see as a more mainstreaming of programming, and, maybe more importantly, its about secrecy and democracy within the network in terms of how the network is conducting itself through these changes.

LF: WHAT KIND OF CHANGES DO YOU MEAN AT THE BOARD LEVEL?

BG: Most recently, the Board has approved a set of governance changes which will change the whole composition of the National Board, and basically what it'll do is mean that the National Board can essentially be totally self-perpetuating…it will pick the majority of its own members, as opposed to having most of its members come up from local station boards…and this is something that was announced after-the-fact in March. And then there was sort of a confusing line…people were told that it would actually be approved at this June's meeting. Then, at this June's meeting, everyone was told that it had actually been approved back in February in Houston. So…

And there's also the issue of secrecy in board meetings, closed board meetings, which is also a whole other subject.

STEVE RENDELL (SR): BELINDA, CORPORATIONS ALWAYS ACT IN SECRET. WHY IS THAT IMPROPER IN THE CASE OF THE PACIFICA GOVERNING BOARD?

BG: Well, of course…I mean everyone, everybody needs to have the ability to do things effectively and have secret session when they need to, but Pacifica is a publicly supported nonprofit that gets 80% of its money from individual donors in each station area, so, in that sense, its very different from a corporation because it is a publicly supported nonprofit media network whose purpose is to have information be accessible to the public.

SR: SO THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS SEEMS TO MEAN THAT THE POWER HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM THE FIVE PACIFICA-OWNED STATIONS AND CONCENTRATED IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNING BOARD?

BG: It would appear that way, yes.

LF: NOW ALONG WITH THE BOARD CHANGES THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED, YOU'VE ALSO COVERED FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN CONTROVERSY ABOUT PROGRAMMING CHANGES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT THE LOCAL KPFA, BERKELEY STATION IN THE LAST YEAR OF TWO YEARS.

TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THE TWO SIDES SHAPE UP ON THAT DEBATE…AND THEN I'D LIKE TO BRING JOE DOMANICK INTO THIS DISCUSSION. HE'S WRITTEN ABOUT SOME OF THE SAME PHENOMENON IN LOS ANGELES.

BG: Well, I think there really is a sort of important and valid debate over what kind of programming is going to go on Pacifica stations. Here, what has happened is that public affairs programming has been cut quite dramatically and a lot of programming that was very dear to people in the progressive community has been cut: bi-lingual programming, Native American programming, prison programming…that sort of stuff has been cut and I'd say, there's been more arts or sort of slightly entertainment oriented programming on. But I think that one of the main issues with that is again actually a matter of process. The programming decisions have been made, actually up until this year, very suddenly.

Things really got off to a bad start in terms of how the community was informed, how the community was notified, what kind of input communities had about what was going to be on the air.

LF: JOE DOMANICK IS AN AUTHOR AN A JOURNALIST WHO WROTE IN THE OCTOBER 4 [1996] EDITION OF THE LA WEEKLY AN ARTICLE CALLED "LEFT FOR DEAD" THAT TALKED ABOUT WHAT HE SAW AS AN EFFORT AT KPFK TO AS HE PUT IT "RESURRECT THE STATION WHOSE INFLUENCE AND AVANT-GARDE STATUS IS TODAY AS DEAD AS THE TIME WHEN TERMS LIKE 'THE LEFT' AND 'COUNTERCULTURE' ACTUALLY MEANT SOMETHING."

THAT'S HOW YOU DESCRIBED CHANGES AT KPFK…WHAT WAS MOTIVATING THEM. CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE FOR OUR LISTENERS?

JOE DOMANICK (JD): Well, I think that these kind of internecine warfare that went on at KPFK and continues to go on at KPFA I think are, are really luxuries that, that anybody who has nay semblance of progressive politics can ill afford.

Just as a listener here in Los Angeles, KPFK is the only station I can listen to hear a Marc Cooper and his Radio Nation, and hear Amy Goodman…or hear any semblance of the kind of the kind of left mainstream politics that I feel I'm part of and that's the only outlet for it on television or radio here. So, I think that, that we need to support Pat Scott and Mark Schubb and people who are trying to, to really be relevant…to not just keep listeners like myself, but to, to gain new listeners, people that, that have 20 or 30 years on the air and kind of say, "Well, this is my show...ya know…I'm this small segment of this small sliver of a population."

I think that, that might have been fine in 1972, but its...its, you know in the age of Rush Limbaugh we, we can't afford that. We need to be as relevant as possible and have a radio station like KPFK gathering as many listeners as possible and putting the word out.

SR: PAT SCOTT IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PACIFICA AND MARK SCHUBB IS THE STATION MANAGER OF KPFK IN LOS ANGELES. BELINDA, OPPONENTS OF SOME OF THESE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING UNDERTAKEN BY PACIFICA MANAGEMENT ARE OFTEN PORTRAYED AS OPPONENTS OF ALL CHANGE. IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT NOTION?

BG: Yeah. I think you've really hit upon the key point there. There's a difference…the sort of broad brush idea that anybody who opposes the more autocratic way that things have been is sort of an old, irrelevant hippie is just patently false, as illustrated by the people who have sort of come out and said," You know, we totally respect the desire to gain audience, to become more relevant. There's obviously nothing wrong with that, in fact it's a great idea, but there's got to be process, there's got to be accountability and there's got to be an awareness that getting greater audience doesn't just mean getting greater white upper-middle class audience."

JD: There are times when process becomes the obstacle and you have to just the whatever it is by the scruff of the neck and we've got to do this.

SR: IN CLARIFICATION, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SLIVERING OR SPLINTERING, ARE YOU SAYING THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH NARROW-CASTING TO IDENTITY GROUPS?

BG: The fact that some people have different interests doesn't preclude forming an effective progressive coalition with vision and that does need to happen, there's no doubt about that.

JD: I was talking about identity politics. I think there's a need for some identity politics, the gay and lesbian show for example is a good show, and its certainly necessary. But, I'm also talking about 20 hours of music from Belize…its just...there's no…this is 1997…it, I mean, we've got to get relevant.

SR: JOE, DO YOU SEE SOMEHOW THAT RELEVANCY IS TIED INEXTRICABLY TO A CENTRALIZATION OR A CONSOLIDATION OF POWER AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL?

JD: I certainly do. I mean, these are the times that, that try progressive souls and, and we have so few voices, I mean PBS is a joke. NPR is a corporate lackey.

What is there except for Pacifica? And a stronger, more relevant Pacifica. Otherwise we're just, you know, we're just whistling in the wind.

BG: If the progressive institutions that progressives control can't even behave in ways that are even moderately democratically effective, then where the hell are we? And I think that's the big question. Its an old argument that democracy is not efficient and it's a discredited argument.

LF: WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH BELINDA GRISWOLD WHO'S A STAFF REPORTER AT THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN, AND JOE DOMANICK, AN AUTHOR AND A JOURNALIST WHO'S AN AUTHOR AND A JOURNALIST WHO'S ARTICLE ON THE CHANGES AT THE LA PACIFICA STATION, KPFK, APPEARED IN THE OCTOBER 4 ISSUE OF THE LA WEEKLY LAST YEAR. THANKS VERY MUCH BOTH YOU, JOE

JD: Thanks...

LF: ...AND YOU, BELINDA

BG: Thanks…

LF: YOU'RE LISTENING TO COUNTERSPIN, AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION OF THE PACIFICA CONTROVERSY NOW, WITH ANOTHER EXPERT WHO'S NAME IS PETER FRANCK. PETER FRANCK IS AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING ENTERTAINMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN SAN FRANCISCO.

FROM 1980 'TIL 1984, MR. FRANCK WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE PACIFICA FOUNDATION. AND IT'S ABOUT THE HISTORY OF PACIFICA THAT I'D LIKE YOU TO REMIND OUR LISTENERS, MR. FRANCK.

TO BEGIN WITH, MANY OF OUR LISTENERS AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH PACIFICA, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER. HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE MISSION OF THE NETWORK FOR THOSE LISTENERS WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR?

Peter Franck (PF): Pacifica was founded by a group of pacifists at the beginning of the Cold War, led by a man by the name of Lew Hill who had been a conscientious objector and a journalist in Washington and found he couldn't talk about the danger of the gathering Cold War on the commercial station he was working for. He realized, because of objections from the sponsors, he realized that only if the sponsors were the listeners could there be free radio and radio talking about issues so important as the gathering Cold War storm. Hence, the name of the organization, Pacifica, does not refer to the ocean which it was founded near, but to the concept of peace.

They structured themselves initially with something called the "Executive Membership" which was members of the community, paid staff and unpaid staff which elected a board of directors, which was the Board of Directors of the nonprofit foundation Pacifica was and still is.

This gets a little ahead of the story, but in 1961 the Board of Directors changed the by-laws in such a way that they became a self-perpetuating board, disenfranchising this executive membership. That was a change that the Federal Communications Commission ruled was an illegal change of ownership but they never actually did anything about it.

Pacifica is the only mass electronic medium that non-mainstream, non-business or government dominated forces are ever going to have a chance of being involved with in this country which is why its future, and how its future is decided is so important to lots and lots of people.

LF: SO YOU CAN SEE WHY PEOPLE ARE GETTING VERY HOT UNDER THE COLLAR ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. THE CRITICISMS I'VE HEARD MOST LOUDLY IS THAT THIS PACIFICA NETWORK IS A TRADITIONALLY LISTENER-SUPPORTED NETWORK IS NOW MOVING AWAY FROM THAT LISTENER BASE, TO TAKE POWER, AS IT WERE, OUT OF THE HANDS OF PRODUCERS AND CONCENTRATE IT ELSEWHERE.

PF: The founders' vision of listener-sponsored radio was really genius. I mean their notion was that you don't pay people to deliver an audience, which is what commercial radio is all about…or television. But, the audience would be the sponsors, listener-sponsorship, and the people doing the programming did the programming not because they were paid big bucks for it, but because they loved the programming and loved the subject.

But, the founders didn't really resolve very well the question of who decides what the direction of this valuable organization is going to be. And many of us feel that there are a number of stockholders in the organization, in Pacifica: staff, the management, the listeners, social movements that a peace-oriented station should be serving.

What's really been happening in recent years is sort of a seesaw of power between staff and management. In recent years, power has gone strongly from staff to management, I mean managers of the stations to some extent but I mean even more to the National Office. And, there are a number of organizational and financial reasons for that. But the National Staff in recent years has led a very secretive process of changing the programming.

They closed board meetings in violation of the law. They have..in their minds, they talk about professionalizing…for instance in February 1995, they brought all the program directors to Albuquerque, New Mexico for a weekend with a highly-paid consultant by the name of David Giovanni [sic] and I'm looking at the minutes of that meeting…

Giovanni [sic] advised the Pacifica program directors two years ago now, "programming that's geared toward a slightly more moderate audience will be more inclusive." He's talking about building audience, "The more programming skirts the edge, the more people will be excluded." Giovanni [sic] thinks that, "Generally, for many people, politics is not as important as being entertained."

Well, there's been this very closed process of trying to shift the direction towards getting a mass audience without, in my view, a real sense of mission, of what they wanted to accomplish with getting that mass audience.

LF: DO YOU THINK THIS IS A PRELUDE TO MOVING AWAY FROM LISTENER-SUPPORTED RADIO ALTOGETHER?

PF: I'm afraid it is. I saw recently on the Internet, there's a lot of information about all of this available on the Internet, a posting on Pacifica's web page, of, they're looking for a new development director who would be based in Washington, DC. The job was described as getting money from not primarily grants even, but they would sell things like t-shirts and so on, and it was clear they wanted to raise a lot of money from non-listeners and not even program-related kinds of things.

One of the things that's happened is, that over a two or three year period there's been a very secretive process of coming up with a "5-year plan." I think that this plan needs to see the light of day. And, if I could quote from it a little bit, it gives you a flavor of where its going. it says:

"Shared elements of Pacifca's vision: a fully-funded plan; local and national programming; a sound financial base; recruiting, training and keeping capable staff and volunteers; reasonable resource development strategy; new technology; professional competence at all levels of Pacifica; up-to-date physical facility."

LF: THAT DOESN'T SOUND TOO BAD.

PF: Well there's nothing wrong with that. They're nice things in some ways but they don't reflect any notion of a grassroots organization bringing in people from the community, having community input. It's sort of this squeaky clean nonprofit "consultantspeak" which you hear more and more these days. Why it's important in essence is, you can't make the world a better place by emulating the tactics and the behavior of the people you're trying to change. You can't act like a dictator and create a democracy, and that seems to be what's going on in Pacifica. There's got to be grassroots empowerment if this is an institution that's going to play a significant role in a discourse about media.

Pacifica does not allow discussion of these issues on its own air. As an institution, it should be discussing vitally what's going on with all media including progressive media.

I think what has to happen is that Pacifica has to publicize their 5-year plan widely and broadly. There has to be meetings in all the areas to discuss it. There should be a national program, moderated by someone of unimpeachable neutrality, Cornell West comes to mind, to discuss all of the threads of this controversy and really to engage in a five-year, if it takes that long, planning process of where this valuable community institution should go.

The future of progressive, free media is one of the few things that guarantees us some hope of a better future for the country. So, there needs to be an open dialog and debate on where this institution that we all own is going.

LF: WELL, THANKS VERY MUCH. PETER FRANCK IS AN ATTORNET PRACTICING ENTERTAINMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN SAN FRANCISCO AND FOR 4 YEARS IN THE '80'S HE SERVED AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE PACIFICA FOUNDATION.

FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT MORE INFORMATION, AND WHO WANT TO SEE IN PARTICULAR THE PACIFICA NETWORK'S OWN REPRESENTATION OF THESE CHANGES, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK INTO THE WEB PAGES OF BOTH THE PACIFICA NETWORK AND ITS CRITICS.

PACIFICA CAN BE FOUND AT: www.pacifica.org

AND SOME OF THE CRITICS OF PACIFICA CAN BE FOUND AT: www.radio4all.org/freepacifica

WELL, THAT'S IT FOR COUNTERSPIN FOR THIS WEEK…